American Atheists Hide Behind the Fairy Tale of Evolution

American Atheists, who represent the religion of the New Atheist movement in the United States, have “launched a billboard campaign in several Bible Belt states urging people to skip church this Christmas and stop listening to ‘fairy tales.’”

The billboards contain this message showing a child writing a letter to Santa Claus: “Dear Santa, all I want for Christmas is to skip church! I’m too old for fairy tales.

“‘Even children know churches spew absurdity, which is why they don’t want to attend services. Enjoy the time with your family and friends instead,’ said American Atheists President David Silverman. ‘Today’s adults have no obligation to pretend to believe the lies their parents believed. It’s OK to admit that your parents were wrong about God, and it’s definitely OK to tell your children the truth.’”

I find everything that David Silverman and the American Atheists do quite amusing. How does he know if anything he is claiming about his worldview is true? Talk about fairy tales.

Here’s the sign that best fits Mr. Silverman’s fairy tale atheism:

“Dear Santa, all I want for Christmas is to skip science class! I’m too old for fairy tales that teach that I evolved from pond scum.”

In order to be an atheist, a person must forget everything he learned in his high school science classes and adopt the long-refuted belief in spontaneous generation – life from non-life – a fairy tale that was

“decisively dispelled during the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur. He expanded upon the investigations of predecessors (such as Francesco Redi who, in the 17th century, had performed experiments based on the same principles). However, the experimental difficulties are greater than people might think, and objections from persons holding the traditional views persisted. Many of these residual objections were routed by the work of John Tyndall, succeeding the work of Pasteur. Ultimately, the ideas of spontaneous generation were displaced by advances in germ theory and cell theory. Disproof of the traditional ideas of spontaneous generation is no longer controversial among professional biologists. Objections and doubts have been dispelled by studies and documentation of the life cycles of various life forms.”

Even with the long ago burial of spontaneous generation, the evolutionists writing for the Wikipedia article try to resurrect the long-dead corpse with fanciful pixie dust: “However,” the Wikipedia article adds, “the principles of the very different matter of the original abiogenesis on this planet — of living from non-living material — still are under investigation.”

There must be an “original abiogenesis” because life from non-life evolution is the basis of all science in academia today. To admit otherwise would throw the entire system into disarray and ask many uncomfortable questions about the origin of life.

The evolutionary worldview that stands behind the atheists’ religious belief system is built on the biggest fairy tale of them all, that matter, to which atheists have no way to account for, became David Silverman and the rest of us.

Not only can’t Silverman and his fellow atheists account for matter, but they can’t account for the information necessary to animate the organic machines that they claim developed and evolved without any outside intelligence.

“It thus could be said that the proposition that the universe hand an Intelligent Designer is the most fundamental of all scientific theories and that it has been successfully put to empirical tests again and again. For, as Albert Einstein once remarked, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible: ‘A priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way. . . . That is the “miracle” which is constantly being reinforced as our knowledge expands.’”1

Given the evolution model, chaos is the operating premise, but the world is not chaotic, an important point that atheists can’t explain considering the complexity of every aspect of our world.

Consider this from the people who are trying to create artificial life. First, designers are involved in the process. Artificial life has not and will not come into existence and “evolve” on its own. Second, “With 100 billion neurons and 37 trillion cells, the human body is simply too complex to be artificially designed by modern computers.” But we’re to believe that the complexity of the human body came into existence and evolved to its present capacity on its own. There is no history or testable evidence for the evolutionary worldview. Keep in mind that changes within species is not evolution.

Atheists must deny what they were taught in science class in order for their belief system to be considered valid. Spontaneous generation, the necessary basis for evolution, is the stuff of fairy tales. It’s the world of “abracadabra,” “open sesame,” and “poof,” a frog has been turned into a prince! As ridiculous as all this sounds, it’s the essence of evolution, at least the atheistic kind advocated by David Silverman.

In his book The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins lays the groundwork for the Darwinian fairytale:

“We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started. Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the rising, by some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity.”2

This isn’t science! It’s no wonder that one of Dawkins’ books is titled The Magic of Reality. He writes that “rocks don’t feel joy or jealousy, and mountains do not love. These emotions are intensely real to those who experience them, but they didn’t exist before brains did.”3 According to evolutionists, we were once the stuff of rocks and mountains. So how did we become what we never were?

Evolution is about magic, conjuring something out of nothing. Until evolutionists demonstrate (1) the origin of matter out of nothing (abracadabra), (2) how inorganic matter evolved into organic matter (abiogenesis), (3) the origin of information and its meaningful organization (DNA programming), and (4) a genetic explanation for why it is mandatory that anyone be moral (ethics), evolution is little more than a fairytale dressed up in shining armor.

“For roughly fifty years secular scientists who have faith in the power of dumb atoms to do anything have been carrying on scientific research aimed at finding out how the dumb atoms could have initiated life without any outside help. Since they believe that this really happened, they believe that it was inevitable that the properties of atoms, the laws of physics, and the earth’s early environment should bring forth life. More sober minds, however, have realized the immense improbability of the spontaneous origin of life (called ‘abiogenesis’). Some have made careful investigations and mathematical calculations to estimate what the probability is for abiogenesis to occur. Their calculations show that life’s probability is extremely small, essentially zero.”

Start with nothing . . . absolutely nothing. No air. No matter . . . not even an atom. No energy. No space. No thought. No time. Just a long dead silence. This is the evolutionist’s reality before the dawn of something becoming everything. At some infinitesimal moment in time all the stuff that makes up our world came into being, the atheists tell us. Like the Millennium Falcon coming out of light speed, the cosmos appeared, the difference being, there was no Millennium Falcon or light to measure its speed. Once there was nothing, now there is everything.

If as Dawkins says, teaching fairytales to children is dangerous, then teaching them the fairytale of evolution is the most dangerous fairytale of them all.

Now that would make a great billboard!

Rodney Stark, How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2014), 317.(↩)

Consider partnering with us

I do believe in Romans 1:20, have you seen the billboards put up by Answers in Genesis?

parkerdw1

@JFK Homeschool unless you want children of Caesar.
Sincerely,
David Parker

parkerdw1

dschram Romans 1:20 tells the story. If you don’t believe Romans 1:20 is valid, then you think evolution makes sense. I don’t believe I have taken this verse out of context, it stands on its own as a complete statement.

Sincerely,
David Parker

paroikos

You can’t count the number of times you’ve “had to explain even very basic concepts like Superposition to Creationists…” ?
And you probably can’t count the number of times you’ve had to explain how Darwin’s “…warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc. present,” transformed itself into an information-charged, self-encoding, Darwin-creating biosphere.
That means you’re able to explain how very basic concepts like life, consciousness, language, and science are all matter-made?

princeofdorkness

Perhaps the problem isn’t evolution, but rather the fact that so few Christians understand basic geology or biology?I’ve had to explain even very basic concepts like Superposition or phylogenetics to virtually every Creationist with whom I have interacted.

Why would anyone make up his or her mind without first understanding the issue? This unwillingness to learn and understand prior to judgment is just astounding.

captainkendoll

@TheFiveSolas I don’t think that was irony. I think it was a simple joke that went over your head

The problem is both sides sling mud at each other and claim the teaching of fairy tales. We shouldn’t lower ourselves to such tactics. They only listen when they know we care. Otherwise it is just one world view vs another.

SoonerManOKC

@JFK True. The Christian community needs to define their terminology a little better in light of the latest scientific developments. Some Christians have the idea that all interpretations of evolution are godless. This is simply not true. On other hand, most public school evolutionists – so to speak – think that all ‘Creationists’ are Young-Earth Creationists; hence, this is one of the reasons why it is not allowed through the public school door. Some of this generation have never heard of Old Earth Creationism to my surprise. Evolution (Macro-evolution vs. Micro-evolution) is one term as an example of defining our terminology. To distinguish between the godless form of evolution (naturalistic macro-evolution) and the religious form of evolution (progressive creationism), let’s use N-evolution and R-evolution. 🙂

paroikos Right on, bro. I prefer the Concordant Literal translation: “Beware that no one shall be despoiling you through philosophy and empty seduction, in accord with human tradition, in accord with the elements of the world, and not in accord with Christ, for in Him the entire complement of the Deity is dwelling bodily. And you are complete in Him, Who is the Head of every sovereignty and authority . . .”

paroikos

The current, supra-Christian world-view of evolvoid religionists is selectively iconoclastic. Their dismissiveness and certitude speaks from their own dark faith in cognitive prestidigitation. Dawkins’ core belief, for example, reduces to a wonderfully blasé axiom: _dead matter underwent 13.5 billion years of undesigning trial-and-error to teach itself how to think_.
Evolution’s mythic skill with the complexities of self-encoding molecules not only breathed life and biodiversity into the Big Bang’s inert elements, but mindlessly fitted them with human consciousness, cognition and technology. The “intelligence” producing this was not transcendent and supernatural, but immanent and elemental. The “reality” of Evolution is entrenched in a pure physicality that does god-stuff.
Hence, the hyper-naturalist banalities of the _Thank God For Evolution_ website: “God is not a person; God is a mythic personification of reality,” “‘Scripture’ That Doesn’t Evolve Can Become Deadly,” “Evolutionize Your Life: ‘Heaven’ is Coming Home to Reality,”“Religion is about Right Relationship to Reality, Not the Supernatural,” …etc.
Christians are warned about these farcical specimens of “evolutionary evangelism”:
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power… (Colossians 2:8-10).“

JFK

Yes, Evolution and Atheism is all nonsense, but it is seriously damaging our chidlren. Just try and add Creation studies in public school or public universities. You will have lawsuits coming at you from the left so fast it will make your head spin. Some school districts have tried and hit that wall. I have parents in my own church, in which we have a great school system within the synod, but they refuse to send their kids to these schools for many reasons that are really just stupid, other than the extra cost of education. But then again what is a childs brain and life worth now a days? Children really cannot make the determination of fairtales, if they are bombarded daily about the lies of evolution, to which they enter into that fairytale lie and get absorbed into it and have no campacity to learn anything different. The future for them is not so good in that realm of reality. Thank God for small town values who still have some logic left to at least offer their children some options to learn about creation and the God we so love in Jesus. Yet around the world we see people flocking to Christ and His creation. They are very thirsty for the Word. We can only hope that this age of chidlren become thirsty as well, and the many others who are lost.

Billboard idea #1: A picture of Disneyworld. Line: Charles Darwin would have loved this place.
Billboard idea #2: 1st half of billboard: A picture of the Fed. Line: Richard Dawkin’s self-replicating entity is now known. 2nd half of billboard: A picture of Detroit. Line: Results may vary.

schultz812

New Atheism = New Excuse
Atheists taking their internet trolling outdoors.
How much would it be to put up a billboard?

TheFiveSolas

Did anyone else notice the irony of the American Atheist’s fictional, but “enlightened” little girl writing to the fairy tale that is Santa Claus, letting him know she’s too old to believe in fairy tales?

TheFiveSolas

Did anyone else notice the irony of the American Atheist’s fictional, but “enlightened” little girl writing to the fairy tale that is Santa?